Personal Reflection Through the research and readings I discovered that the way I deliver Graphics to students follows Henderson's (2006) observations of constructivism. The Senior Graphics Syllabus (2007) is certainly based on Project-Based Learning, with evidence of Problem-Based Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning.
It is also fascinating to notice that I use the Engagement Theory (1999) a lot in Senior Graphics as well as in the delivery of the practical workshop subjects in the fields of wood, metal and plastic.
I have always been conscious of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (Teacher Tap n.d.) and have noticed through observation and experience the differences in student learning styles and the subjects they choose to study, eg. Graphics tends to attract students who tend to be Logical/Mathematical, Intrapersonal and Visual/Spatial where the practical subjects in the wood, metal and plastics fields attract students who tend to be Bodily/Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Logical/Mathematical.
Most Senior Syllabus's have used Bloom's Taxonomy (2002) as a way to form assessment items and to base assessment criteria to.
The two new Theories that I have learnt through this course are the Big6 (2010) and Technological Pedagogy & Content Knowledge (TPACK) (2009). The Big6 is logical and is possibly carried out by most teachers without realising it.
At first glance TPACK appears simple, however, the identification of learning experiences by students under each of the possibilities could be interpreted differently by different educators. Just as the Web 2.0 tools categorised within Bloom's Revised Taxonomy could also be subject to interpretation. The interpretation of the Web 2.0 tool and the context that it is used in. Eg. Visuwords is an online graphical dictionary. If students are going to use it no differently to using a hardcopy dictionary to look up the meaning of a word then under Bloom's that would be considered understand and TPACK would be content. The same tool could be used to look up word associations, the different types of words that make up our language and change the category within both Bloom's and TPACK.
It would be great to look further into developing digital versions of Bloom's Taxonomy, Multiple Intelligences, TPACK etc.
Journal References Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D. & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) Skills Curriculum Based on the Big6 Skills Approach to Information Problem-Solving. Library Media Connection, May/June 2010, pp24-27.
Henderson, M. (2006). Planning for Intergrating Online Learning. Quick No 98 Autumn 2006 12pages.
Jackson, A., Gaudet, L., McDaniel, L., Brammer, D. (2009). Curriculum Integration: The Use of Technology to Support Learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning; Nov2009, Vol. 6 Issue 7, p71-78, 8p
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, Autumn2002, Vol. 41 Number 4, p212-218.
Through the research and readings I discovered that the way I deliver Graphics to students follows Henderson's (2006) observations of constructivism. The Senior Graphics Syllabus (2007) is certainly based on Project-Based Learning, with evidence of Problem-Based Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning.
It is also fascinating to notice that I use the Engagement Theory (1999) a lot in Senior Graphics as well as in the delivery of the practical workshop subjects in the fields of wood, metal and plastic.
I have always been conscious of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (Teacher Tap n.d.) and have noticed through observation and experience the differences in student learning styles and the subjects they choose to study, eg. Graphics tends to attract students who tend to be Logical/Mathematical, Intrapersonal and Visual/Spatial where the practical subjects in the wood, metal and plastics fields attract students who tend to be Bodily/Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Logical/Mathematical.
Most Senior Syllabus's have used Bloom's Taxonomy (2002) as a way to form assessment items and to base assessment criteria to.
The two new Theories that I have learnt through this course are the Big6 (2010) and Technological Pedagogy & Content Knowledge (TPACK) (2009). The Big6 is logical and is possibly carried out by most teachers without realising it.
At first glance TPACK appears simple, however, the identification of learning experiences by students under each of the possibilities could be interpreted differently by different educators. Just as the Web 2.0 tools categorised within Bloom's Revised Taxonomy could also be subject to interpretation. The interpretation of the Web 2.0 tool and the context that it is used in. Eg. Visuwords is an online graphical dictionary. If students are going to use it no differently to using a hardcopy dictionary to look up the meaning of a word then under Bloom's that would be considered understand and TPACK would be content. The same tool could be used to look up word associations, the different types of words that make up our language and change the category within both Bloom's and TPACK.
It would be great to look further into developing digital versions of Bloom's Taxonomy, Multiple Intelligences, TPACK etc.
Journal References
Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D. & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) Skills Curriculum Based on the Big6 Skills Approach to Information Problem-Solving. Library Media Connection, May/June 2010, pp24-27.
Henderson, M. (2006). Planning for Intergrating Online Learning. Quick No 98 Autumn 2006 12pages.
Jackson, A., Gaudet, L., McDaniel, L., Brammer, D. (2009). Curriculum Integration: The Use of Technology to Support Learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning; Nov2009, Vol. 6 Issue 7, p71-78, 8p
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, Autumn2002, Vol. 41 Number 4, p212-218.
Electronic References
Ideas to Inspire. (n.d.). Forty-Seven Interesting Ways to use Wordle in the Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ideastoinspire.co.uk/wordle.htm
Dimensions of Learning (n.d.). What is Dimensions of Learning and How is it Used?. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/dimensions/whathow.asp
Kearsley, G. & Schneiderman. (1999). Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Teacher Tap. (n.d.). Technology and Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved from http://eduscapes.com/taptopic68.htm
Government & Legislation References
Queensland Studies Authority (QSA). (2007). Graphics: Years 11&12 Senior Syllabus. Retrieved from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_graphics_07_syll.pdf